Sagi Martinov1,2, Sebastien D'ulisse3, Edouard Haumont3, Dragos Schiopu3, Pieter Reynders3, Tamás Illés3,4,5. 1. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Brugmann University Hospital, Free University of Brussels, Place Van Gehuchten 4, 1020, Brussels, Belgium. sagimartinov@gmail.com. 2. Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada. sagimartinov@gmail.com. 3. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Brugmann University Hospital, Free University of Brussels, Place Van Gehuchten 4, 1020, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 5. National Medical Academy, Paris, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Currently, accepted treatment for periprosthetic femoral fractures with loose femoral stem indicates its revision; however, recent studies have proposed treating Vancouver type B2 fractures via internal fixation without stem revision, particularly in the elderly or multi-morbid patients. Despite indications for stem revision, some surgeons tend to perform internal fixation. The main goal of this study was therefore to identify the parameters that were significantly different comparing internal fixation to stem revision for Vancouver type B2 fractures. METHODS: Eighty-one Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures, treated between 2010 and 2019, were analysed. The internal fixation (ORIF) and the revision groups were compared. Patients' age, BMI, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score, anaesthesia type, operating time, blood loss, surgeons' experience, post-operative weight-bearing, length of hospital stay, and radiological outcome using AGORA roentgenographic assessment were analysed. RESULTS: Patients chosen for ORIF were significantly older than those treated by stem revision (85.4 vs 75.1 years; p = 0.002). Blood loss was 390.7 and 1141.6 ml in the ORIF and revision groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). The surgical times were 134.5 and 225 min in the ORIF and revision groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). Our analysis of BMI, ASA score, anaesthesia type, length of hospital stay, surgeons' experience and radiological outcome, were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Revision did not exhibit better radiological results; moreover, internal fixation resulted in significantly less perioperative blood loss and a shorter operating time, concluding that ORIF is a viable alternative to revision arthroplasty, particularly in older patients.
PURPOSE: Currently, accepted treatment for periprosthetic femoral fractures with loose femoral stem indicates its revision; however, recent studies have proposed treating Vancouver type B2 fractures via internal fixation without stem revision, particularly in the elderly or multi-morbid patients. Despite indications for stem revision, some surgeons tend to perform internal fixation. The main goal of this study was therefore to identify the parameters that were significantly different comparing internal fixation to stem revision for Vancouver type B2 fractures. METHODS: Eighty-one Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femoral fractures, treated between 2010 and 2019, were analysed. The internal fixation (ORIF) and the revision groups were compared. Patients' age, BMI, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score, anaesthesia type, operating time, blood loss, surgeons' experience, post-operative weight-bearing, length of hospital stay, and radiological outcome using AGORA roentgenographic assessment were analysed. RESULTS:Patients chosen for ORIF were significantly older than those treated by stem revision (85.4 vs 75.1 years; p = 0.002). Blood loss was 390.7 and 1141.6 ml in the ORIF and revision groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). The surgical times were 134.5 and 225 min in the ORIF and revision groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). Our analysis of BMI, ASA score, anaesthesia type, length of hospital stay, surgeons' experience and radiological outcome, were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Revision did not exhibit better radiological results; moreover, internal fixation resulted in significantly less perioperative blood loss and a shorter operating time, concluding that ORIF is a viable alternative to revision arthroplasty, particularly in older patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Blood loss; Femoral stem revision; Hip revision surgery; ORIF; Operating time; Periprosthetic hip fracture; Surgeon experience; Vancouver classification
Authors: David González-Martín; José Luis Pais-Brito; Sergio González-Casamayor; Ayron Guerra-Ferraz; Jorge Ojeda-Jiménez; Mario Herrera-Pérez Journal: EFORT Open Rev Date: 2022-08-04